Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and Simon Clarke

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

With respect to the hon. Lady, of whom I am a great admirer, that is an unfair characterisation of the success of the scheme. It clearly needs to be situated in the wider context. In fact, the British economy has performed much better than anyone expected when the scheme was set up. There are robust processes in place that make sure that we genuinely are adding additional value. So work coaches have to certify that the people on the scheme are eligible for it and would have been unlikely to find work without it. Employers need to demonstrate how the jobs created are additional. Finally, it is important to contrast this scheme with the last Labour Government’s future jobs fund, which reached its total far more slowly and was far less effective. This scheme has got 130,000 and rising young people into work. It has been a great success.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is interesting that the Minister can call kickstart such a resounding success, given that last month the Public Accounts Committee said that the Department that runs the scheme does not know what success looks like because it launched the scheme without any idea as to what the success criteria would be. It also has no way of knowing whether the young people who are referred to kickstart jobs are the right young people and it is not properly evaluating the longer term support that employers give to those young people. Does the Minister agree with the PAC report, which was endorsed by a Committee consisting of a majority of Conservative MPs?

[Mr Clarke]

No, I do not agree with that report. It is an unfair characterisation of a response that was put in place at pace to meet an unprecedented crisis in our employment market. The wider success of our policy on youth employment is best measured by the fact that in January there were 500,000 more employees aged under 25 than there were in January 2021. The kickstart programme has played its full part in helping to make that possible.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Peter Grant and Simon Clarke

Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Clarke]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is important to clarify one of the misapprehensions about what has happened over the course of the passage of this legislation to the issue that we are working to address. The Government did not, as it has been described, make a mistake. We inserted transitional protections into the scheme after the recommendations of Lord Hutton, expressly at the request of the trade union movement. It is important to establish that the request for transitional protections to be inserted was a trade union-led request. That is what triggered the discrimination action against the Government, which we are now working to address. I would defend the Government’s record here quite strongly; this is not something that we have brought about. None the less, we are obviously working in good faith to seek to address it.

[Peter Grant]

It just will not wash for the Minister to blame the trade unions. If this Government were in the habit of paying a blind bit of attention to anything else the trade unions say, that might be credible. But the trade unions did not make the regulations that were proved to be unlawful; the Government made them. Why can the Minister not accept that the Government took the decision and got it wrong?

[Mr Clarke]

The Government obviously take responsibility for all of those things, but it is important to establish the full context. We inserted the changes at the request of the trade union movement, and they were found to be discriminatory in a way that could not have realistically been anticipated at the time that the legislation was brought forward. None the less, we are where we are, and I want to address some of the substantive concerns raised in particular about the cost of remedy. We will come back to this later as well in the course of the Committee, because it will arise again in the context of some of the other clauses.

It is really worth clarifying definitively that the Exchequer is responsible for paying out pensions due from unfunded public service pension schemes, to which this relates. This works in practice by current employer and member contribution incomes being used to meet the costs of paying current pensioners. Where contribution income does not match the cost of pensions in payments in any given year, the Treasury has to make the balancing payment. In this way, the Exchequer guarantees the benefit that members worked so hard to earn, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes rightly said, during their time in service.

Remedy increases the pension rights of eligible members over the period in question—2015 to 2022. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said, the estimated cost of this remedy for unfunded schemes is in the region of £17 billion, in terms of long-term liabilities for the Exchequer. The Exchequer will therefore pay out these increased pension benefits due to members over several decades as members retire. There should be no doubt that the ultimately liability sits with the Exchequer, rather than scheme members. It is worth noting that, overall, these reforms are estimated to save the Exchequer some £400 billion in long-term liabilities, which is important for the long-term sustainability of our public service pension schemes in an age of rising life expectancy.

On the question of remedy, which is really important in the cost control mechanism, I should be clear that member benefit levels and contribution rates are set out in individual scheme rules and can be adjusted through the cost control mechanism at scheme valuations. The cost control mechanism—again, I will expand on this later—is designed to both protect the value of schemes to members and to protect the Exchequer from unforeseen costs.

At each scheme valuation, the mechanism assesses the benefits that have accrued and are accruing to members to determine whether future benefit levels of member contribution rates need to be adjusted to manage the cost of the scheme. By increasing the pension rights of eligible members, the remedy we are talking about today increases the value of those schemes to members, which is why it is right that it is reflected in the cost control mechanism for the 2016 valuations.

However, because we are waiving the ceiling breaches while honouring floor breaches of the mechanism, it is vital that we establish now, for the avoidance of any doubt, that no member benefits will be cut and no member contribution rates will increase as a result of the 2016 valuations. Any benefit improvements due will be honoured, but no additional costs will be imposed. I reassure the hon. Lady, on her important question, that the costs of our remedy genuinely sit with the Exchequer, not scheme members.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s important point regarding people not being caught up by pension fraud. Public service pensions schemes do not allow members to transfer to such arrangements, only to equivalent defined-benefit schemes, so there is a degree of protection against the most egregious fraud, but we are always happy to work with individual schemes and the industry to try to promote best practice and make sure that people do not fall victim to any form of mis-selling.

As I set out, this is a highly complex and technical Bill. The amendments in this group, and some we will come on to discuss, are crucial to ensuring that a robust remedy is in place—in this particular instance, for teachers with excess service and those who have a period of service that was subject to a local government contracting-out transfer. On the point that the hon. Member for Glenrothes raised, it is important to note that many of these amendments result from close discussion with individual schemes and stakeholders right up until this moment, not because we had not anticipated many of these questions but because, in truth, how best to resolve them—there are sometimes multiple ways—has been a matter for close discussion. We are confident that the remedies we are bringing forward and the amendments that fall within the scope of today’s proceedings are the optimal way of making sure that we have a new system that is fair and, crucially, provides the most robust possible remedy to the concerns being raised.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendments made: 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 37, at end insert

“, or

(c) is, as a result of a local government contracting-out transfer, pensionable service under a pension scheme that offers pension arrangements that are broadly comparable with those offered to the person before the transfer.”.

This amendment amends the definition of “disqualifying gap in service” so that it includes a period during which the person was transferred to a private sector employer under local government contracting out arrangements.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 3, line 3, after “scheme” insert “or excess teacher service”.—(Mr Clarke.)

This amendment is consequential on the amendment of the second condition in this clause made by separate government amendment.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Remediable service treated as pensionable under Chapter 1 legacy schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 5 requires scheme regulations to make provision to allow a member who opted out in relation to a period between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 to elect for that service to be reinstated as though they had not opted out, if they satisfy conditions that may be specified in the regulations. This ensures that the member can be put back in the position that they would have been in had they not chosen to opt-out as a result of the discrimination.

[Peter Grant]

Can I raise with the Minister the concern that I raised on Second Reading but did not get an answer to? I welcome the vast majority of clause 5, because it is right that if a member of a pension scheme took a decision about opting in or out based on circumstances that have now changed beyond their control they should be given the opportunity to reconsider that decision. That is absolutely correct. And there has to be some kind of provision as to the conditions about when that right is put in place; I do not have a problem with that.

However, paragraphs (5)(c) and (6)(a) refer to conditions potentially being applied that would require the applicant to submit certain information before the application could be accepted? The House of Commons Library has suggested that one type of information that could be asked for would be for the individual to demonstrate that the reason that they took action was because of what we now know to have been unlawful discrimination built into the scheme.

My question to the Minister is this: is it reasonable to expect somebody to be able to demonstrate that? What standard of proof will be required? I need to remind the Minister that the Windrush scandal happened because the Government retrospectively decided to demand that citizens produce certain information in order to have their rights of citizens respected and they made completely unreasonable expectations on people to have retained information.

Okay, we are talking now about something five or seven years ago instead of 30, 40, 50 years ago, but the principle is still the same. Is it reasonable to assume that people will have kept documentation to demonstrate that they acted on the basis of information at the time and not for some other reason? Can we have an assurance that any regulations will not put an unreasonable burden of proof on people who may well have acted for the reasons set out in the clause, because the chance of them having kept any evidence to prove it five or 10 years later is pretty slim?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Again, I have a question that I put on Second Reading that was not truly answered then.

In the background papers for the Bill, the Government suggested that clause 6(7) would apply to a fairly small number of people—I think that was how they described them. These are the people who would have a better deal if they were able to mix and match some provisions from one scheme and some from another, and they are now being told that they can opt for entirely one scheme or the other.

I understand the Government’s position, which is that these are people who have been given a benefit that they would not have had if there had not been unlawful discrimination, so they can have no reasonable objection if it is taken away. I suspect that the people who will lose that benefit will take a different view.

However, my real question was this: how many people are potentially affected? The information I have seen—this is the figure I quoted on Second Reading—is that we could be looking at somewhere up to 245,000 people. That is a small percentage of the total number of pensioners affected by this legislation, but a quarter of a million people cannot be described as a small number. Will the Minister confirm how many people he expects to be affected particularly by the restriction in clause 6(7)?

[Mr Clarke]

I can commit to write to the hon. Member with our best estimate, although it may be that my officials can provide me with such an estimate. In that case, I will relay it to him in a later answer as we make progress on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 10

Deferred choice to receive new scheme benefits

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Clauses 23 to 25 are concerned with ensuring that schemes have further powers to remedy the discrimination that arose. Clause 23 provides a power for scheme managers to pay compensation in respect of any compensatable losses incurred by members as a result of the discrimination suffered. Clause 24 provides a power for scheme regulations to award a member additional benefits where a member has suffered a tax loss because of the discrimination. Finally, clause 25 provides that scheme regulations for a chapter 1 legacy scheme may make provision to give members with remediable service the facility to enter into new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions, to further address the discrimination.

[Peter Grant]

I have some similar questions to the one that I asked on clause 10, although the wording here is much more specific. I am looking at clause 25(3), where, again, there is a requirement that if someone wants to pay the additional voluntary contributions that they would have paid earlier but for the change in the scheme regulations, they can do so

“only if the scheme manager is satisfied that it is more likely than not”

that they would have chosen to pay them had they known that the change was coming.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how do we ensure consistency of treatment if we have scheme members applying to different scheme managers? Perhaps more importantly, what is the route of redress if someone is unhappy with the decision of the scheme manager? Do the Government plan to legislate in order to set out clearly what the redress is in those circumstances, or do members have to fall back on the grievance and dispute procedures that are built into their terms of employment or the terms of individual schemes? That could mean that we get inconsistency when people in similar circumstances put in similar applications, so that one is approved under the rules of one scheme, and one is not approved under the rules of another. That does not deliver the equality of treatment that the Bill is intended to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

We have modelled the full detail. In so far as there is any particular point of clarification that the hon. Lady would like, I will happily write to her after these proceedings to provide whatever we can.

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister clarify something about the other part of my question? Who will decide whether the appropriate measure to use is the growth in the economy of the entire UK, the growth of the economy of one sector, or the growth in the economy of one nation or region? Is that decision within the remit of the OBR?

[Mr Clarke]

It is the OBR’s decision to make.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 86 accordingly disagreed to.



Clause 87

Amendments relating to the Secret Intelligence Service etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Peter Grant and Simon Clarke

Committee debates 2nd sitting & Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asks his question. We always want to discuss these issues as fully as possible with a view to finding viable options where they exist. As I said, the Home Office has consulted on detailed regulations to implement the prospective McCloud remedy for the police pension scheme, and it will bring forward the outcome of that consultation in due course.

The Government must not take action that inadvertently creates a new form of the very discrimination that this legislation is designed to address. The Government must also safeguard the purpose of the reforms proposed by Lord Hutton and ensure that public service pension schemes are put on a sustainable fiscal footing. As the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission put it,

“Allowing current members to continue to accrue further benefits in the present schemes for many decades would be unfair and inequitable to the new members coming behind them.”

The reformed public service pension schemes remain among the most generous schemes available in the United Kingdom. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ most recent assessment, 6.3 million public sector workers participate in these valuable schemes, while only 0.7 million workers in the private sector have access to defined-benefit schemes that are open to new members.

I am concerned that the new clause ultimately seeks to oblige the Chancellor to devise measures that would contradict these crucial aims of the prospective McCloud remedy. Compensating members with remediable service for the difference in pension age between their legacy and reformed schemes would, effectively, leave a protected class of public service pension scheme members beyond 31 March 2022, which could perpetuate the discrimination identified by the courts, or give rise to new discrimination. It would also severely weaken the efficacy of the prospective remedy for many years to come, at very considerable cost to the taxpayer.

To summarise, I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for bringing attention to this issue, and reassure her that the Government have been considering the position of these members. However, careful consideration must be given to the need to avoid perpetuating the discrimination identified by the courts, or introducing new discrimination against other pension scheme members, or inadvertently undoing much of the policy aims of this Bill, and this new clause asks the Chancellor to propose a means of doing just that. I therefore, respectfully, ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Minister started off by suggesting his main concern was that the new clause seeks to go further than has been requested by the Police Superintendents Association. If that was the case, then the Minister could have easily tabled an amendment that came closer, in his view, to delivering what the PSA was asking for without going significantly further. He has not done that, so we have to wonder if he had any intention of addressing the issue had the new clause not been tabled.

We are asking the Chancellor to table a report and present it to Parliament. There is nothing in the new clause that would require the Chancellor to commit a single penny of additional spending. It does not tell the Chancellor what his or her conclusions have to be at the end of that. It is perfectly in line with the wording of the new clause for the Chancellor to produce a report to say, “We could remedy the situation by doing a, b, c, x, y and z, but I cannot recommend doing that because that would introduce unfair discrimination that would be contrary to the purpose of the Act.”

The Minister is trying to make it seem as if the new clause is about forcing the Government to incur additional expenditure. My reading of it is that it is deliberately worded to avoid asking for a commitment at this stage, but it seeks to force the Government to recognise that there might still be a massive weakness in the Bill and to force the Chancellor to come forward with a solution that might address that weakness. If the solution proves to be unworkable or to be unfair in other ways, Parliament has the option to reject it.

Surely, it is wrong, at this stage, that a potentially serious unfairness should be left sitting in the Bill just because we are not sure we can find a way of fixing it. That is not a fair response to give, either to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who moved the new clause, or to those officers who are likely to be affected by it.

Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Peter Grant and Simon Clarke

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)]

I am glad to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. The UK economy is roaring back to life following the unprecedented challenges that we faced during the height of the coronavirus pandemic. It may have escaped the attention of Scottish National party Members, but job vacancies have hit record highs while the unemployment rate has fallen sharply. Our GDP has rebounded. We are set to enjoy faster growth this year than anywhere in the G7, and our economy is now bigger than it was before the pandemic.

Job numbers are rising, unemployment is falling and the economy is back to its pre-covid level, but that has not happened by accident. The economy has been able to bounce back so strongly and quickly only because of the decisions made by this United Kingdom Government. Let me remind the House of those decisions. The £400 billion of direct economic support has protected millions of people’s livelihoods in every part of the United Kingdom, with the furlough and self-employment income support schemes safeguarding, in Scotland alone, more than 1 million jobs. The success of our vaccine roll-out has meant that we have retained the most open economy and society anywhere across Europe. And our plan for jobs is creating work opportunities and ensuring that people have the right skills to get into work.

Those achievements are underpinned by the fiscal strength and stability of our economic union. That is why, at the autumn Budget, we confirmed that the devolved Administrations are receiving an extra £12.6 billion of Barnett-based funding this year, taking total block grant funding to £77.6 billion.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

In that glowing list of statistics that the Minister had prepared for him, does he have a figure for the current level of child poverty on these islands, and if not, why not?

[Mr Clarke]

What the hon. Gentleman misses is that a jobs-based recovery lies at the heart of this Government’s plan. If he cares to look at this Government’s record, as opposed to that of the Government in Holyrood, he will see that the United Kingdom Government outperforms Holyrood every day of the week on job creation, growth and stability, which, in the end, goes to the heart of all our constituents’ life chances.

Over the next three years, the Government are providing, on average, an additional £8.7 billion a year to the DAs on top of their annual £66 billion baseline. That funding equates to an average of £4.6 billion a year more for the Scottish Government, £2.5 billion more for the Welsh Government and £1.6 billion a year more for the Northern Ireland Executive. It will support the devolved Administrations as they shape the economic recovery and decide how best to invest in the vital public services on which people rely.

We are acutely aware of the cost of living challenges that people face. Inflation is expected to average around 4% this year, 2.6% next year and then to return to target by the end of 2023. It is true that almost every other developed economy is facing similar issues due to increasing global demand after the pandemic and a global spike in wholesale gas prices.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and Simon Clarke

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Clarke]

I had a good meeting yesterday with my hon. Friend and fellow Stoke and north Staffordshire MPs. The Government are supporting small firms across England through the network of 38 growth hubs, one of which is based on Stoke-on-Trent. In our manifesto, we announced our intention to create a national skills fund, which will help to transform the lives of people who have not got on the work ladder and lack qualifications, as well as people looking to return to work or to upskill.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Every year Scotland exports a quarter of a billion pounds worth of salmon to the European Union. This week, the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation expressed serious concern about the continuing uncertainty of Brexit. What assessment has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made of the impact on this vital industry of the Chancellor of the Duchy Lancaster’s announcement that “as friction-free as possible” trade with the EU means “not friction-free at all”?

No-deal Brexit: Short Positions against the Pound

Debate between Peter Grant and Simon Clarke

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Government are doing what they are doing because we believe it is right to leave the European Union on 31 October, as we all promised that we would. That is absolutely what animates our actions; any suggestion to the contrary is not just wrong but offensive.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

How does the Minister defend a situation in which anyone who is caught insider gambling deliberately to fix the result of a game of cricket goes to jail, but anyone who is insider gambling deliberately to crash the economy is likely to end up in the House of Lords?

[Mr Clarke]

That is a very serious suggestion. I would not recommend that the hon. Gentleman repeat it outside the Chamber.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Simon Clarke

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

I never suggested that, although it is perhaps worth remembering that at least one of the right hon. Gentleman’s own colleagues, a Conservative MP, has admitted that they did not vote in the referendum because the question was too hard for them to understand. I wonder how many other people were in the same position. There is a big, big difference between not fully understanding and being stupid. It is an insult for Conservative Members to suggest that anyone who admits they did not fully understand it, or still do not feel they understand it, is stupid.

My comments were not based on suggesting that people did not understand. My comments were based on the fact that the ultimate responsibility we have is to act on what we believe to be the public’s best interest, not simply to follow what we think will get us re-elected next time around. The fact that so many Brexiteers are horrified at the idea that Members of Parliament should be given the chance to make that statement to their constituents suggests that an awful lot of them think that such a statement may be needed. They think that we will get to the end of the process and a large number of MPs will want to go back to the people and say, “I’m sorry. I supported it this far but I cannot support it any longer because I can see the damage it will cause.” I will leave that for Members to think about. I do not expect anybody to be persuaded just now, but I appeal to Members to think about that over the next wee while. It is fundamental to the nature of the representative democracy we have in this place.

Of course, it goes without saying, on the other amendments the SNP will be supporting, that, in this partnership of equal nations, the elected Parliaments of all the equal nations must have a say on the final deal. They must have a much greater say than they have had up until now. With the contempt shown for the devolved nations through the process so far, it is difficult to believe that the intention has been anything other than inflammatory.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—